Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Doing this kind of thing is a breeze in Belgium. Everyone has an ID card with chip containing a couple of certificates on it. A site can use these to validate you say who you say you are by checking through a government server. Ebay does account verification [certipost.be] in this way. Quick, painless.

Doing this kind of thing is a breeze in Belgium. Everyone has an ID card with chip containing a couple of certificates on it. A site can use these to validate you say who you say you are by checking through a government server. Ebay does account verification [certipost.be] in this way. Quick, painless.

In the past, you wouldn't have had to explain to the people here why allowing the government to require everyone to carry "papers" was a good idea in the short term, but a bad idea in the long term.

Now 80 percent of/. is just a bunch of script kiddies who think opposition to this kind of thing is rooted in religious crackpottery, or imaginary straw men who just think everything from Europe is communist.

I mean, gosh, Washington, Madison, Jefferson -- How could those guys not understand how much better life

Effectively, it removes privacy in the long term. Once its been around long enough that it stops being a "convenience" and starts being a "requirement" that you have some form of ID, you can then be tracked with relative ease.

And that's generally considered a bad thing. The old "nothing to hide" argument against unrestricted privacy invasion is stupid -- everyone has something that they'll eventually need to hide from someone else. Whether its a religious belief, their political preferences, their porn s

Here in PT we also have a card with certificates provided by the govt, but each service (Social Security, National Health Service, etc) has its own ID number and database. It's forbidden by our constitution - which was written after the military coup against the fascist govt - to create a centralized ID/database.

Personally, I don't really have a problem with e.g. banks and similar organizations from requiring government ID, but a social network? It's completely abusive.

One simple reason is that a strong centralised identity system makes identity theft easy. Now an attacker just needs to compromise one (supplied to the government by the lowest bidder) system and they can pretend to be you in any context. There are other reasons related to civil liberties, such as erosion of anonymity, which is a requirement for truly free speech (ask those terrorists who tried to overthrow the lawful British government in the North American colonies a couple of hundred years ago).

Doing this kind of thing is a breeze in Belgium. Everyone has an ID card with chip containing a couple of certificates on it. A site can use these to validate you say who you say you are by checking through a government server. Ebay does account verification [certipost.be] in this way. Quick, painless.

There are a large, large number of government programs that one could ask "what is it, precisely you dont like about it?" I have, in fact, been asked this about the Obamacare plan.

The simple, easy answer to most of these questions is as follows:A) Most of these cases are NOT the federal government's role, according to the documents (or contracts, if you will) that grant our government its authorityB) This is because a large, expansive, powerful central government was originally regarded as a bad thingC) Wh

Personally, I am on the fence about an ID system. I recognize a need for enforcement to be able to do their job; but at the same time I am not sure there is sufficient justification for imposing such a system on a national level, particularly given that the design of the USA seems to be, from everything I have read, to have been a coalition of independently governed states with a federal arm that performed ONLY those roles that the states could not.

But we already have a national ID. It's called a passport. U.S. passports even include biometric data and RFID now. Of course, you don't have to have a passport -- but try leaving the country and coming back without one. Effectively, your right to travel depends upon your being identified via a national ID.

Two years ago a co-worker and I drove for a few hours from South Africa to Lesotho to do some work. We reached the border around 7pm and it was dark and mostly deserted. We got our exit stamps on the South African side and drove across the border into Lesotho. We didn't see anyone nor did anyone stop us, and it completely slipped our minds that we had to stop to get our entry stamps on the other side, so we just drove through.

Two days later when we were leaving around midday, obviously everyone's awake now

I've never understood the theoretical problem, and can only assume that the opponents of ID cards in principle must be people who:

Don't drive a car

Never leave the country

Look old enough to buy alcohol

Never take out loans, open bank accounts, savings accounts, mobile phone contracts...

...all of which currently require ID, and in many cases have to resort to silly, ad-hoc ID checks such as abusing passports/driving licenses for purposes other than travel/driving, asking for utility bills etc. A properl

No, everyone gets an ID and you must carry it with you at all times. I don't see why that would be a big deal, it's basically just a plastic card with a summary of the information the government has on you anyway.

Yeah : Stop And Identify Statutes [wikipedia.org]. Or you know, excercise your right to remain silent and be photographed, fingerprinted and thrown in the hole. I'll just show my ID thanks, all that's on those papers is my name and where I live. if you are being given a ticket or being arrested they're going to ask you that anyway.

I have been arrested. I have a right to remain silent, I'll exercise it fully. They will not get my name from me, therefore I can question how they got my name. When I was arrested the asked my name. I didn't tell them. I didn't say a word. Once the "you're under arrest" happened, I shut my mouth.

Nothing pisses off a cop than having to figure out who you are.

I was acquitted of the charges mainly because the cops had NOTHING but each others conflicting testimony. They had nothing because I gave them nothing.

No, everyone gets an ID and you must carry it with you at all times. I don't see why that would be a big deal, it's basically just a plastic card with a summary of the information the government has on you anyway.

It's a "big deal" because the state doesn't own you, you own the state. They should have no right to force you to carry ID at all times. If you are a private citizen minding your own business, why should you be forced to identify yourself to the authorities? If the need for identity legitimately arises (hopefully via due process) then you can always produce appropriate proof then.

Interesting that Europe - which should, more than any other part of the world, appreciate why tight state control over citizen

Europeans do not, in general, believe that strong state is bad. They believe that strong state is bad when used for nefarious purposes. That is why there is "hate speech" and other similar kinds of censorship in Europe - it is there to prevent the bad guys from taking over. For a more specific example, it's why Germany has a law banning political parties that promote things directly contradicting the "democratic order" - i.e. parties which are against democracy, secularism, human rights etc.

You are wrong. At least in California and Oregon and Washington, you are required to carry a state issued ID card at all times. Driving, walking, whatever, you are supposed to have a state ID card. I'm also pretty sure many many other states feel the same way.

Oh, and that bit about not being obliged to present your ID to police... good luck with that. I'd say let me know how it goes, but you'll be in lock up so you won't be able to. In fact, in most states, the ONLY thing you are obliged to do in re

I really don't get it, if I:deal with the bank, I prove my identity with a debit card,deal with the library, I prove my identity with a library card,deal with traffic cops, I prove my identity with a driver's license,and if I deal with the government, I prove my identity with an ID card.

What's the big deal ? I mean look what's on this thing [wikipedia.org] and tell me what exactly about that is supposed to enslave me ?

The deal is, that We The People delegate certain of our inalienable rights to Our Government; we do not need ANYTHING to prove that we exist as individuals. This is why we do not have nor do we ever need government identity papers -- Because We The People give the power to the government, not the other way around. Your mere existence is its own inalienable self-proof.

You don't need anything to prove you exist as individuals ? I think I know someone on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who'd disagree with that.And it's not proof of existence, it's just identification. You'd think geeks of all people would understand the value of proper identification during interactions with service providers.

Forget it, you're not going to win a rational argument with someone on a subject they can't be rational about. The indoctrination since childbirth to believe that no ID cards and easy access to weapons makes a free society runs too deep.

I freely admit I'm a pragmatist. I can see the philosophical reasoning but I'll take the real benefits over the purely theoretical loss of dignity. There's no sense in ending up with half baked systems (like the US social security card, which from what I understand relies on security by obscurity) or basically outsourcing identification services to the DMV or worse, the banks (who famously even send credit card offers to dogs.)

Americans really do not trust their governments. Maybe they have a good reason for it... I dunno. It seems you are happy to trust your government and I am happy to trust mine. Oddly enough, your country and mine are high on a voter turnout list while USA has the lowest voter turnout on this wikipage [wikipedia.org].

How can you delegate power to the government if you can't prove you exist? Or at least that you're American? Some kind of formal proof of existence and nationality is necessary for any large democracy to function.

There are lots of good reasons but you don't have to agree with them as is your right. Personally I'm just fine using a photo ID to travel via commercial air transport, rent a car and hotel at will, qualify for credit lines as needed so as not to expose my own wealth to scanners and frauds - at home or abroad.

The point is that people who are here legally, but have brown skin, must carry their papers with them at all times. If they lose them, or forget them at home, or whatever, then they get tossed in jail until they can present them. So the statement "Americans are a free people: No Identity papers" doesn't apply to Arizona. In Arizona, you're only free if you're white.

I don't think you've thought this through very well. Your reply does not seem to be based on fact.

(1) "people who are here legally, but have brown skin, must carry their papers with them at all times."

I've just been reading up on Arizona's SB 1070. It makes no mention whatsoever of "brown skin." The law seems to apply equally to all colors of immigrants. I.e., it certainly discriminates between nationals and foreigners, but does not seem to discriminate between *types* of foreigners.

Don't be ridiculous. You know damn well that no cop is going to arrest a white person on suspicion of being an immigrant. The fact is that the law will be used against anyone with brown skin, and pretty much no one else.

As to your second point, anyone living long term in this country is an American. That's what makes this country great, or at least what used to. That we take people from all over the world, mix the cultures together, and come out with one super culture (which we then sell back to the wor

(1) "You know damn well that no cop is going to arrest a white person on suspicion of being an immigrant."

Are you aware that the law explicitly forbids arresting a person of *any* color on "suspicion of being an immigrant"?

(2) "Anyone living long term in this country is an American."

Not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't believe a long tenure of living here automatically grants you American citizenship, though of course you can apply. But what if you choose not to? What if you don't consider yourself an American? Are you one anyway? And do you mean living long-term here legally? Or illegally?

You are obviously speaking from the heart here, but that doesn't mean what you're saying makes any sense. Often, the opposite.

(3) "That's what makes this country great, or at least what used to. "

I'm sorry, but this is objectively incorrect. What made this country great was the unprecedented application of liberal values: Freedom of speech, assembly, religion and thought; government of, by and for the people; equal justice under law; etc. In other words, all those things we call "liberty." How long people lived here had nothing to do with it. Simple racial diversity is a nice plus -- I like it as much as you do -- but even the most cursory review of history will show that it's hardly critical, or even necessary. Plenty of relatively homogenous civilizations have achieved great things.

(4) "Once you get right down to it, this law will be used to imprison legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens of Mexican ancestry."

ALL LAWS are eventually abused, by politicians, prosecutors or cops who are incompetent, ignorant, racist, etc. This law is no different. Victims of abuse are free to sue for giant settlements, just like in any other case of wrongful arrest/imprisonment.

The law can expressly forbid it, but when it tells cops to arrest people who they suspect might be here illegally, the fact remains that the people most likely to be suspected are those with brown skin and Spanish accents. Which means that there are plenty of American citizens of Mexican descent who may very well be arrested, for no reason other than their appearance.

I don't see how you can take issue with the notion that permanent residents, be they natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, or legal im

FWIW it used to be the case in most US states that simply residing there fo a certain period of time (1 year for most, sometimes 6 months, sometimes 2 years) made one immediately eligible for citizenship. This began to change from 1870s on, and mostly disappeared by 1900 - largely due to "yellow peril" hysteria, anti-Catholic sentiments, and other forms of racism and religious intolerance.

First of all, an immigrant is an American from the point he gets American citizenship. Apart from not being able to become a president, his rights and duties are the same as any American born on US soil.

Second, GPs case applies equally to natives. Suppose you are born in US to Mexican parents (who could even be citizens by the time of your birth). This makes you a natural born citizen of US. But aside from your birth certificate, you might not have any other document to prove this. If they stop you on the street in Arizona for "being suspiciously like an illegal immigrant", and you have no ID to present, they can lock you down until someone fetches them your birth cert.

This all is not just theory - there already were cases of US _citizens_ being detained because they couldn't readily prove their citizenship on the spot. JFGI.

If you are here *legally*, then you already have papers -- and that goes for every state, not just Arizona.

If you are are *illegally*, then you have committed a crime. Why exactly should you not "end up in prison."?

Please clarify.

In America, citizens don't need to carry identification papers, nor do they need to justify brown skin with proof of legal residency. The original version of SB1070 required police to check the residency status of anyone they came into contact with when there was "reasonable suspicion" (what does that mean?) that the person might be here illegally, and to imprison that person (possibly a U.S. citizen!) if they could not immediately produce proof of legal residency. See the problem?

Yes I do. But it's not relevant -- the "original version" is not the one that passed. According to Wikipedia, the one that passed stated that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest."

I don't particularly like this law. Could it be abused? Oh, totally. But it only came about because of the federal government's politically motivated failure to even try to live up to its obligations.

(ARTICLE IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State i

Just to clarify, the original version of SB1070 did pass and was signed into law. It was amended a week later after the massive outcry began. The amendment was a very good idea: in particular, witnesses to or victims of a crime should not arrested for being here illegally just because they reported a crime. Otherwise, since we have millions of illegal immigrants here who aren't going away anytime soon, we'd be creating a class of perfect victims.

Misleading. You'll note that the man was arrested on minor charges; not failure to present identification. You are not required to carry or provide identification in America unless you are driving a vehicle or flying a commercial airline. A few municipalities have enacted very controversial and constitutionally grey laws that require you to identify yourself if an officer believes you are engaging in a criminal activity and you are of course always required to provide identification if you have been *arrest

As for a driver's license, I did not have one until I was 33 years old, and I only need it when I am driving an automobile -- that is why it is called a driver's license. The only person who ever gets to see it, is a police officer and only if I am driving. There is no other legitimate need for anyone to see it, ever.

So what two forms of identification did you use to get any of the jobs you have had in your life?

Yes you can be an american citizen, natural born, and not have any form of universal identification. Though you would find your life to be very restricted. Just proving your citizenship would be down right impossible. In reality practically all US citizens have a Universal ID, and though you can not be required to reveal that ID, you can be restricted from service for not doing so.

the reason why the driver license worked is because Google is using India and china to process our information. I have already had to deal with these guys on some other issues and was surprised to find out Google outsourced that much. What I find interesting is that Google is still using Chinese and that China is being allowed to learn that much about other nations. And by outsourcing this to foreign nations, you can see the results of this. I think that somebody from Mexico or Canada would do better and k

Apparently you don't even need Real Photoshop to turn a McLovin' Hawai'i Driver's License into an adequate-quality fake ID for Google+ purposes.

The idea that faxing/emailing a copy of an ID somehow validates that you are the legitimate owner of that ID was bogus from the get go.

At best the guy looking at the copy can plug in the name and address (if it is on the ID) into a marketing database to see if it matches what's already in that database. But he can't tell that you aren't a faker who looked up the target's identity in the phone book or even the same database and then put that info on a forged ID and emailed it them.

I'm curious if one could just type some gibberish in notepad, rename it "*.png" and submit that as their driver's license. There's no way anyone actually looked at the second license and thought it was legit. I suspect Google is just conducting some security theater. Ask for a scanned license, and expect imposters to just slink off with their tail between their legs.

Except that they claim to not store the data and even recommend that you blur identifying information other than your name. And even if they were storing the IDs, what happens if the fake Gary Walker is just as persistent at providing bogus IDs for verification as you are at providing real IDs? If Google doesn't actually verify the validity of the ID provided, they really don't have any choice but to accept that both Gary Walkers must be real. They'll end up with a database full of real IDs and fake IDs

If it only took 2 hours, I doubt there's a human involved. They probably just ran some OCR software and tried to find the name in the output. Blurring everything else makes this easier. You could probably just generate a blurry image, type your name over a part of it, and send it.

Samsung I guess?
Some indie game makers
Appleseed, diaspora, and a bunch of other social networking sites you've probably never heard of
Any company that doesn't actually make anything (except for patent trolls, who we also hate)

Electronics don't like being just left around to rot. I'm not sure where you are from, but here in Florida humidity is a killer. If you let it run it drives off the damp. Printers that sit are printers that die.

We solve it by putting them in the landfill next to all the analog volume controls for radios that have failed over the years. Corrosion issues are rarely worth the time to repair anymore - especially on the cheaper MFPs which I'm convinced are all designed to have a lifesp

Here in Hong Kong, the same. 95%+ humidity for weeks. I just had a look at a laptop that hadn't been used for a few months on a shelf. The screen was covered in mould. Still booted up, but it's not even suitable to give away now. But my HP Laserjet 5MP, vintage 1995, is still chugging along. I leave it powered on all the time, it only draws about 5 Watts so I don't think this is irresponsible. Still works fine (the cart is replaced with the toner) though the plastic casing is getting brittle and bits snap o

My last.* is takenMy first-last.* is takenMy firstlast.* is takenas is firstmiddlelast.*, first-middle-last.*, Flast.*, F-last.*, FMlast.*, F-M-last.*, first-L.*, firstL.*, as well as all of those with my shortened version of my first name (think "steve" instead of "steven").

Granted, the ".*" is a slight exaggeration, but * includes com, net, and org, and many others for most of those.It's also hard as hell to find me on any social site unless you know my email or some other more specific information.

When IPV6 becomes more widely adopted and we dispose of all this NATting more devices will be on a classless network and this sort of service will be sold at best buy to run on your own mini-NAS build into your year 2014 computer.